I have been challenged

by SpiceItUp 36 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LyinEyes

  Just wanted to say......... good to see ya Spice, it's been awhile , how are you?

  Saw the pictures of you and Beans and they were great. Ya'll were crazy , girl!!!!!!!!!
• 

  Buster

  I think you'll love this one: There is no rational basis for including the Divine name in the New Testament. Franz had no grounds to translate hundreds of references 'Lord' to Jehovah. 'Jehovah' just ain't there. If daddy does his research, he'll find the JW rationalizations - but they are not valid. The NWT is quite flawed in it's emphasis of Jehovah at the expense of the mediator Christ.

  You will need to do some research to be ready for a round or two. I'll check some notes I have at when I get home tonight - Pacific time.
• 

  Introspection

  Well, if you want to get into it by all means, but just remember to not get pulled into their trap. The 'challenge' of proving something as false is secondary, the real issue is seeing that their thinking is messed up. Of course, this all depends on how reasonable your father is, but you can't prove something to someone who is not able or willing to see the proof.

  Edited by - Introspection on 20 January 2003 17:52:29
• 

  Francois

  I always did like 1 Kings 7:23, which indicates that the value of Pi is 3.0. It's very, very hard to argue that point. That it says the value of Pi is 3.0 is clear. Ask him about that.

  francois
• 

  LovesDubs

  Im thinking tho that he will say even if he loses this bet, that the bible says he must be a follower of GOD not of MEN and that Jehovah wants him to be a JW and that is what he must do. So dont get your hopes up...JWs dont go down this easily. There is a loophole for EVERYTHING.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Oh, that reminds me... don't fall for the old gag of revolving definitions. When something, someone, or a concept is mentioned, get him to commit to a definition. For instance, get him to define things like "God", "Universe", "Create", "Inspired by Holy Spirit", etc...

  Also, don't let the topic slide around. When you are talking about something, stick with that topic. If something comes up mid conversation, tell him that you want to stay on topic and will visit the new line of thought afterward.

  Another book, which I haven't read but looks interesting, is The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold

  Since I haven't read it myself, I will quote a review of the book:

  Book Description
  Controversial and explosive, The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion! This powerful book maintains that these groups drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era and reworked them into the story the Christian religion presents today-known to most Westerners as the Bible. Author Acharya makes the case that there was no actual person named Jesus, but that several characters were rolled into one mythic being inspired by the deities Mithras, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and many others of the Roman Empire. She demonstrates that the story of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, is nearly identical in detail to those of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus, and concludes that Jesus was certainly neither original nor unique, nor was he the divine revelation. Rather, he represents the very ancient body of knowledge derived from celestial observation and natural forces. A book that will initiate heated debate and inner struggle, it is intelligently written and referenced. The only book of its kind, it is destined for controversy.
  
  From the Author "The Christ Conspiracy" contains over 1200 footnotes that cite archaeological, historical and literary documentation by a wide variety of sources, including many Christian authorities extending back to the beginning of the Christian era. The book is a scholarly work that presents scientific analysis and facts, not "opinions."

  The dating of the gospels to the last quarter of the second century is based on the work of Judge Charles Waite, from his detailed study in "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred," which shows conclusively that the canonical gospels could not have existed earlier than 170-180 CE. Another excellent source of this information is Cassell's "Supernatural Religion," an 1100-page tome that goes into great detail, analyzing early Church fathers' works line by line.

  
  
  Excerpted from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S. Copyright 1999. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved Regarding the dating of the canonical gospels, lawyer Joseph Wheless states:

  "The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates.... As said by the great critic, Salomon Reinach, 'With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Jesus, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 A.D.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors.'"

  In "The Christ Myth," John Remsburg elucidates:

  "The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. Rev. Giles says: 'The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him (Justin) - do not occur once in all his writings.'"

  And Judge Charles Waite says:

  "At the very threshold of the subject, we are met by the fact, that nowhere in all the writings of Justin, does he once so much as mention any of these gospels. Nor does he mention either of their supposed authors, except John. Once his name occurs; not, however, as the author of a gospel, but in such a connection as raises a very strong presumption that Justin knew of no gospel of John the Apostle."

  Waite further states:

  "No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the New Testament.... No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting, or engraving, no sculpture, or other relic of antiquity, which may be looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of those gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of the second century. Even the exploration of the Christian catacombs failed to bring to light any evidence of that character.... The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation of them into other languages, earlier than the third century."

  The Gospel of Luke (170 CE)

  The Gospel of Luke is acknowledged by early church fathers to be of a late date. As Waite states:

  "...Jerome admits that not only the Gospel of Basilides, composed about A.D. 125, and other gospels, admitted to have been first published in the second century, were written before that of Luke, but even the Gospel of Apelles also, which was written not earlier than A.D. 160."

  The Gospel of Mark (175 CE)

  Like Waite, Mead also does not put Mark first: "It is very evident that Mt. and Lk. do not use our Mk., though they use most the material contained in our Mk..."

  The Gospel of John (178 CE)

  The Gospel of John is thought by most authorities to be the latest of the four, but Waite provides a compelling argument to place it third and reveals its purpose not only in refuting the Gnostics but also in establishing the primacy of the Roman Church:

  "So strong is the evidence of a late date to this gospel, that its apostolic origin is being abandoned by the ablest evangelical writers.... Both Irenaeus and Jerome assert that John wrote against Cerinthus. Cerinthus thus flourished about A.D. 145. [T]here is evidence that in the construction of this gospel, as in that of Matthew, the author had in view the building up of the Roman hierarchy, the foundations of which were then (about A.D. 177-89) being laid.... There is a reason to believe that both [John and Matthew] were written in the interest of the supremacy of the Church of Rome."

  The Gospel of Matthew (180 CE)

  Although it was claimed by later Christian writers to be a "translation" of a manuscript written in Hebrew by the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Matthew did not exist prior to the end of the second century and was originally written in Greek. As Waite says:

  "The Greek Gospel of Matthew was a subsequent production, and either originally appeared in the Greek language, or was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, with extensive changes and additions. There is reason to believe it to have been an original compilation, based upon the Oracles of Christ, but containing, in whole, or in part, a number of other manuscripts."
• 

  gsx1138

  Heya, Spice. It is sooo easy to disprove the bible you'll have to narrow it down. I would take some of the other suggestions and have your father pick his 5 points then go from there. The easiest to disprove is the story of Noah. Strictly scientifically speaking you could even make a case for Jesus never existing. You could bring up the obvious contradiction in the account of the death of Judas. Man he kinda left it too wide open.
• 

  expatbrit

  Hello Spice:

  Personally, I think it's a bit of a waste of your time. You see, people who are determined to believe in the infallibility of the Bible always refuse to abide by the rational exercise of logic and reasonablility. When you point out an instance of the Bible making an error, they will come up with explanations that have absolutely no evidence to back them up. Then, after you have pointed that out and shown why their explanation is highly unlikely and raises even more problems, they'll come up with further explanations to explain the inconsistencies of their first explanations.

  This is why religious literature is generally structured with an initial holy book that science and logic show to be full of glaring errors and contradictions, plus an ever-burgeoning corpus of religious literature to try and explain away these problems, and then to explain away the problems in the explanations. This type of nonsensical reasoning is known as ignotum per ignotius, explaining the unknown by means of the even more unknown, and it is the fundamental flaw in the religious mode of thought.

  Eventually they are driven to the extreme of saying the their explanations "could have happened and you can't absolutely prove them wrong", and they go away puffed up with a fit of delusional righteousness while you shake your head with wonderment at the power of the human mind to deceive itself into believing that wants are facts.

  However, here is an essay you might find interesting, with some examples you could try on your Father.

  http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/2/2biolo91.html

  Expatbrit
• 

  Blueblades

  SpiceItUp, Turn the tables on him.Tell him its not about disproving the Bible on any point,but,for him to prove with the Bible his many points.For example:

  Interpreting the Bible: Ask, can a person read the Bible on his own and come up with the truth? If he says no,then how are the proofs established.If he says yes,then tell him that the Society teaches that it is the only one that has the right to interpret the Bible.On what valid basis can the leaders make this claim?

  Also,Scholars themselves have always been at odds with proving and disproving the Bible on many points of doctrine and belief systems.So, the question is a trick question that should be placed back in his court to prove to you his points of belief.

  When using the NWT.he can be challenged by using the "Kingdom Interlinear of the Greek Scriptures,1969 and 1985 versions by the Society along side of the NWT. and he will see how the Society has changed the Greek words to fit their interpretations.

  If it is any help, the society says Jesus died on an upright stake, pages 1149,1150.in the kingdom interlinear, however , the How Can Blood Save Your Life Brochure show the christians dying by being executed on crosses. Blueblades
• 

  borgfree

  Francois,

  Here is one explanation of that scripture:

  Verse 23. And he made a molten sea ,.... A large vessel made of molten brass, which, because of the great quantity of water it held, is called a sea; as it was usual with the Jews to call a large collection of waters a sea, as the sea of Tiberius and Galilee. This was made by the man of Tyre, as the pillars, by the order of Solomon, and answered to the brasen laver in the tabernacle, only larger than that; and was not only for the priests to wash their hands and feet in, but to dip upon occasion, and by the Jews {p} is expressly said to be a dipping place for the priests, see 2 Chronicles 4:6,
  
  ten cubits from the one brim to the other : which was the diameter of it: it was round all about; spherical or circular; not as an hemisphere, as Josephus {q}, and Procopius Gazaeus, but rather cylindrical:
  
  and his height was five cubits ; from the bottom of it, not including the pedestal of oxen on which it stood:
  
  and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about ; this was the circumference of it; which answers to the diameter of ten cubits, or near it, a round number being given not strictly mathematical.
  
  (Sceptics have ridiculed the Bible for saying that the mathematical constant p is 3 instead of the more precise 3.14159. (This number is an "irrational number" and needs an infinite number digits to specify it exactly.) Two explanations for the apparent lack of precision in the measurement are given.
  
  1) The circumference given may be for the inside circumference and the diameter may be the diameter including the thickness of the rim. This would yield a very accurate mathematical result for the inside circumference of thirty cubits. The outside circumference would be about 31.4 cubits giving a rim thickness of four inches or an hand breadth agreeing with 1 Kings 7:26.
  
  2) In 1 Kings 7:26 we read the vessel "was wrought like the brim of a cup." That is the brim on the top of the vessel was wider than the main part of the vessel. The diameter would be given for the brim. If the brim or lip extended about four inches past the main body of the vessel then the outside circumference of the main part of the vessel would be exactly thirty cubits.
  
  In each case the mathematical ratio for circumference of the circle is p d, where "d" is the diameter and p is the number 3.14159 ..... For a more complete discussion on this see the article by Russel Grigg. {r}. Editor.)
  
  {p} T. Hieros, Yema, fol. 41. 1 {q} Antiqu. l. 8. c. 3. sect 5. {r} "Does the Bible say pi equals 3.0?," Russell Greg, page 24, "Ex Nihil," March-May Issue, Vol. 17. No. 2., Creation Science Foundation Ltd. Brisbane, Australia.

  Borgfree